Tripura High Court
Tofayel Hossain vs Union Of India on 4 October, 2023
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP(C) 622 of 2023
Tofayel Hossain
S/o Abdul Latif
R/o Jatrapur Masjid
Block- Kathalia, PO: Jatrapur
District- Sepahijala Tripura
PIN: 799131
---Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. Union of India
Represented by Secretary, Ministry of Defence
(Border Road Organization)
New Delhi, PIN: 110011
2. The Chief Engineer
Chief Engineers Headquarter,
Project Pushpak,
C/O- 99 APO, Mizoram
3. Joint Director (ADMN.)
Headquarter, Project Pushpak,
C/o-99 APO, Mizoram
4. The State of Tripura
Represented by Secretary, Govt. of Tripura
New Secretariat Complex,
Agartala, West Tripura, PIN: 799006
5. The Land Acquisition Collector
Sepahijala District, Bishramganj
PIN: 799103
---Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. A. Nandi, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. B. Majumder, Deputy SGI
Mr. D. Bhattacharjee, GA.
Mr. S. Saha, Advocate.
Date of hearing and
date of judgment and order : 04.10.2023
Whether fit for reporting : Yes.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD
Judgment Order (Oral)
Heard Mr. A. Nandi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also
heard Mr. B. Majumder, learned Deputy SGI for the respondents No.1
Page 2 of 6
to 3 and Mr. D. Bhattacharjee, learned GA assisted by Mr. S. Saha,
learned counsel for the respondents No. 4 and 5.
[2] This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India seeking following reliefs:
(i) Issue rule calling upon the respondents and each one of them to
show cause as to why a writ of certiorari and/or in the nature
thereof for directing the respondents to transmit the records,
appertaining to the writ petition, lying with them, for rendering
substantive and consignable justice to the petitioner.
(ii) Issue rule asking the respondents to show cause as to why the
respondent No.2 should not be directed to make fresh survey of
the land for determination of the quantum of land belong to
petitioner was utilized for construction of said IBB Road at Mouja-
Birampur and then initiate the proceedings for determination of
compensation under Section 28 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 for
payment of due compensation to the land owner/Petitioner.
(iii) After hearing the parties and being satisfied make the rule in
terms of (ii) absolute.
(iv) Issue rule asking the respondents to show cause as to why the
respondent No.2 and 5 shall not be directed to conduct a joint
survey to determine the actual measurement of land belonging to
the petitioner was taken over for the construction of IBB Road
within the periphery of Birampur Mouja.
(v) Issue rule, asking the respondents to show cause as to why the
respondent No.2 should not be directed to pay time bound and
adequate compensation as per provision of RFCTLARR Act, 2013 in
the letter spirit of Case No. WP(C) 148 of 2021 for ends of justice.
(vi) After hearing the parties, being satisfied, make the rule in terms of
(iv) and (v) absolute.
(vii) Pass any other order/orders, writ/writs as may deem fit and
proper for ends of justice.
[3] The brief facts of the petitioner is that the Petitioner is one
of the many land holders in Birampur Mouja of Sepahijala District, at
present, whose land were utilized by the Respondent No. 1 for
construction of IBB Road without observing any legal acquisition
proceedings. No award of compensation was awarded despite repeated
demand. Construction of IBB Road at Mouja - Birampur was completed
in the year 1995 and at present, the same is in use and occupation of
Respondents. Unfortunately, despite serious attempt for awarding
compensation by the Petitioner the Respondents have miserably failed
to render the equitable justice, otherwise guaranteed under Article
Page 3 of 6
300A of the Constitution of India. Background
fact is that a notification
No. F.9(2)-Rev/Seq/VI/1993 dated 26.12.1995 for acquisition was
published under Section 4 of the Old Land Acquisition Act, 1894. At the
time of construction of the road, the alignment was changed and as a
consequence land of other jotedar was also utilized without due
acquisition procedure. No award was determined and disbursed under
Section 11 of the Old L.A. Act in favour of the land holders. Office of
L.A. Collector, West Tripura though made serious attempt for
publication of corrigendum adding the other land considering the
change in alignment of said road from Union Respondent, despite
several reminder also, no positive attempt was made by the Union
Respondent. As a result, the o/o LA Collector, at one point of time
have withdrawn the entire notification dated 26.12.1995. IBB Road at
Mouja-Birampur was constructed without following any due procedure
of acquisition and as such, no compensation was paid in favour of the
affected land owners.
[4] At one point of time, one writ petition was preferred
numbered as WP(C) 952 of 2016. In the said judgment, there was a
direction for actual measurement of the land utilized for said
construction purpose (IBB Road) followed by further direction for
determination of award under the provision of RFCTLARR Act and also
ordered for exercising of all the components of RFCTLARR Act, 2013.
Being inspired by the said writ petition, a series of i.e., total 10 nos. of
writ petitions were also preferred. Those writ petitions were registered
as WP(C) 1163 - 1168 of 2019 and WP(C) 1185-1188 of 2019 and
disposed of in the same direction as is done in WP(C) 952 of 2016.
Another 23 nos. of writ petitions were also instituted and registered as
WP(C) 585-597 & WP(C) 599-603 & WP(C) 626 & WP(C) 682-685 of
2020. Those writ petitions have also been allowed favouring the land
holders confirming their legal right of compensation. Lastly, another 4
nos. of writ petitions have also preferred and registered as WP(C) 148
of 2021 to WP(C) 151 of 2021. On last, 05.04.2022, those 4 nos. of
writ petitions were also disposed of confirming the claim of land
holders, whose lands were utilized. The Petitioner herein is either land
holders or legal representatives of original land holders. He had firm
belief that Respondents would initiate the appropriate proceedings for
disbursement of adequate compensation, though in the meantime
more than three decades had elapsed. At this stage, the petitioner had
decided to approach this Hon'ble Court demanding the compensation
under the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 (the right to fair compensation and
transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,
2013). Hence this instant petition.
[5] It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that
construction of Border Road adjacent to International Border
(Bangladesh) covering the lands of various moujas of said Sonamura
Sub-Division. In Birampur Mouja there are lands belonging to
minimum 55 private land owner (raiyat) and total lands belonging to
them measures more than 6 (six) acres. Initially, as per notification of
the year 1993, land measuring 2.895 acres of land was reflected in the
publication of Notification. Said notification was withdrawn due to
failure of determination and disbursement of award (considering the
non-adjustment of further land as a matter of change in alignment).
On the other hand, IBB Road at Mouja -Birampur was constructed
covering the land belong to other land holders beyond notification
without any acquisition process.
[6] The counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the
land owners whose lands were taken over under the purported
acquisition proceedings was under a process of compulsory acquisition,
but to receive compensation for the land taken over though not a
fundamental right but a constitutional right guaranteed under Article
31 and 300A of the Constitution of India.
[7] After a bare perusal of the entire record, it appears to this
court that the subject land in question was acquired by the
respondents vide notification No.F.9(2)-Rev/Acq/VI/1993 dated
12.03.1993. The counsel for the petitioner has stated that such
notification was subsequently withdrawn by the respondents but he
has not supported any document to support his submission regarding
such withdrawal of notification dated 12.03.1993. No document has
also been placed before this court with regard to the time of laying of
roads and to what extend the land of the petitioner was affected. The
petitioner seems not to have raised any objection regarding
construction of road wayback in 1993-1995. It appears to this court
that more than 20 years have been elapsed by this time and the
petitioner has not taken a single step for seeking any relief against the
respondents. The affidavit submitted by the petitioner is also silent
about any action taken by the petitioner in order to extend any
objection to such acquisition of land or to bring the matter before any
appropriate forum for seeking relief.
[8] It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that in
the case of similarly placed situation, some other owners approached
this Court and filed WP(C) 952 of 2016 which was disposed on
10.05.2018. In the said matter, this Court was pleased enough to
direct the respondents for determination of the measurement of land
actually utilized for said construction of road as well as determination
of compensation under the provision of New L.A Act, 2013. Thus a
similar relief be granted to him. Even for a moment, if such plea is
considered by this court, the petitioner seems to have woken up from
his slumber after 1995 and he approached this court in the year, 2023.
This court has no hesitation to hold that the petitioner has not
approached this court with clean hands. Moreover, the laches done on
the part of the petitioner cannot be the grounds for extending all the
benefits he has sought for by way of filing this writ petition. Neither
did the petitioner place any document showing that he is the lawful
owner of the land in question nor did he submit any document showing
his right, title and interest to claim compensation. Therefore, this court
has no hesitation to hold that the counsel for the petitioner has failed
to make out his case. This is a chance litigation and such casual
approach of the petitioner towards courts cannot be entertained.
Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of merit stands dismissed.
[9] In view of the above, the instant writ petition stands
dismissed. As a sequel, stay, if any, stands vacated. Pending
application(s), if any, also stands closed.
JUDGE
Dipak
DIPAK Digitally signed by
DIPAK DAS
DAS Date: 2023.10.07
15:12:04 +05'30'
